正文
2018年3月5日美国的时代杂志就讲一件事：美国正经历一场其有史以来的最严重的鸦片灾难，美国必须打一场鸦片战争。据统计，美国2016年有六万四千人死于毒品过量，由于死于毒品的人多为青壮年，这直接导致了美国人均年龄连续两年下降。仅仅2016这一年美国死于毒品过量的人，就超过了美国近代战争牺牲人数的总和---包括越南战争、伊拉克战争和阿富汗战争。
很多人鸦片成瘾，起始于药用止痛片。从1990起，到2011年止，漫长的二十一年间，有一个奇怪的理论风行于美国医药界：疼痛是每个人的经验，医护人员不能根据病人的诊断来确定病人的疼痛程度，而应由病人来确定他们自己的疼痛程度。这个理论在逻辑上有严重缺陷。一般的逻辑应该是，每个人的个人疼痛经验是不一样，但是绝大多数的人在断骨接髓后经历的疼痛，应该比大多数手上扎了一根刺的人，疼痛程度要高，疼痛时间要长。但是九十年代，风行全美的疼痛理论，故意无视了这个事实，完全以病人主观意志来指导医务工作人员的治疗方向，谁不以病人的意志为主导，来“治疗”疼痛，轻者被投诉，重者失去工作。可以不夸张地说，这个理论，为美国现在无法控制的鸦片灾难，打开了大门。有的人最初始时，有开刀史，有骨折史，他们有理由用止痛药。但是延长使用止痛药，给鸦片类止痛药成瘾开了方便之门。时代杂志讲了许多具体人的故事。有人一开始是处方药成瘾，渐渐地，他瘾越来越大，买药的费用越来越高，相对而言，违禁的黑市可卡因反而比处方药便宜，他转而用可卡因，从此进入万劫不复的深渊。
“时代杂志”说有一种违禁的“范特脑”，其成瘾性和致死性都极高，是从中国和墨西哥偷运进来的。所以说，来回于中国和美国之间的朋友们，千万别给陌生人带东西。据说在机场等公共场合，现在都要把自己随身的背包拉链拉好，以防毒品贩子临时起意，转移臧物，让你祸从天降。
在2018年第一期埃默里大学校刊上，埃默里大学的第二十位校长可来而瑞。斯特克博士写了一篇短文，题目是“我们有个问题”。斯特克博士在她的文中指出，鸦片类药物成瘾在美国已经急剧上升到了致死的危机关头，这个危机远远没有得到控制，它对青少年危害极大。斯特克博士指出要对鸦片类止痛药成瘾的人进行教育和帮助，而不是指责。她认为，只有人们认识到鸦片类止痛药成瘾的问题是“我们”的问题，而不是“他们”的问题时，这个疫病才可以得到控制。斯特克博士是公共卫生专家，所以她的观点在美国应该具有权威性。
可能禁毒和禁酒不是一个层次的问题。如果说，要禁毒的话，就应该禁止所有的不是饭菜的食用品。既然你无法禁酒，那你也不要禁毒。这在逻辑上，就好像说，人生下来终归是要死的，那么，杀人犯夺人性命也没什么了不起，反正这个人早晚都是要死的吗。
美国禁枪总不得其效，逻辑上也是有问题。因为禁枪的目的是不让有乱杀人倾向的人，拿到武器。可是，造武器的利润太大，所以，双方一在这个问题上开口，马上就有人出来热骂、搅局，最后，大家伙冷静的头脑，被热血沸腾的情绪代替，闹了半天，大家吵累了，造枪的继续造枪发财，什么有力的法律也没形成，老百姓继续惶惶恐恐地受着莫名枪手的惊吓。再好的日子，幸福感也不会有了。
美国的政治家总是以保护弱者为己任，我们知道，很多弱者是由于自己的不得已，比如说天生的残疾弱者，后天由祸而致的弱者，这些人值得同情。但遗憾的是，还有一些弱者是自作而致，比如吸毒者最终变成社会的废人。这时，一些别有用心的政治家，不去深究这些人变成废人的原因，去花力气改变这些原因，而是廉价地鼓吹保护弱者，乱用纳税人的钱，比如说给用毒的人提供免费的消毒注射器，等等。在美国文化里，如果谁想锁紧自己的钱袋， 坐视弱者不问，那一定不得人心。如果哪个民族想不管社会问题，只管自家发财，那这个民族就不太容易在美国社会登上领袖地位。
谢谢你的实事求是的留言。是的，我们的周围，我们孩子的周围，可能就会有瘾君子。他们可能很可爱，很能干，很和气。但在他们毒瘾上来时，就可能由人变成鬼。我们不可能生活在真空中，不可能永远躲在象牙塔中。。。
滥用这个丢命的是把三片碾碎直接用鼻子吸，可能导致心脏猝死。
简单讲、美国高中里不吸毒的孩子据说不多，尤其是富裕家庭的孩子，因为有钱买毒品。我们一个朋友的孩子曾经与小家伙是同学，在高中时进来三次rehab戒毒。据说一般一个在高中吸毒的孩子一个月的花销在一千刀，而这个年龄段的孩子很多有这个钱。小家伙同年级的一个老中女孩，是学生会主席，属于那种学校和老师都宠着的人物，但孩子之间都知道她毒瘾很大，从眼睛上能看出几乎天天吸毒。小家伙大概因为是运动员，不敢这样。再有就是我们给她信用卡，但不给现款，而老中的孩子几乎没见过高中打工挣零花钱的。一般说来，似乎从小就参加集体运动的孩子不容易进入吸毒的圈子。
davidhu1999 发表评论
我想不出什么原因，我们这些与瘾君子基本没有交集的人，需要去把这当做自己的问题。我们也没有任何急迫的愿望要去“控制”这个问题。
谁想控制这个问题，谁当然可以去努力。我们一般人不妨碍您等，但也别义正辞严的说的好像一般人有义务去管这种闲事似的。
Look, every single one of your arguments has collapsed under its own weight. "a society in which people do things out of their free will. That would not work... as long as [the] majority of people still have common sense." Now you have divulged your true intention. You are one typical leftist dreaming of a nanny state where the Big Brother dictates every decision, every action of yours, who is more comfortable in his skin being a slave of someone else, and consider that more commonsensical than being a man of his own free will. You should definitely feel much more at home in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, or in Mao's Communist China.
Now, what is the point mentioning Trump? Is that supposed to be an argument? How? Do you consider him to be omnipotent or omniscient? Is his opinion more persuasive than my own or your own? Again, this exposes your leftist's habit of lack of capacity for independent and critical thinking.
There is no drug problem any more than any problem stemming from any other substance like alcohol, other than that caused by the Drug War itself. You could make the exact same argument for banning alcohol. Why dare you not raise that issue?
Oh, I forgot about the mandy, more than fifty, shades of absurdity of your statement "there is a news piece today, saying the opioid painkiller is not more effective than conventional pain killer. The logic should be simple - due to its addictive nature, even if they are more effective, the damage outweighs the benefits - then make all of them illegal!" First of all, the over sweeping nature of the claim is almost immediately and always wrong. The very fact you believe in the news headline completely reveals either your lack of critical thinking or naivety. Second, have you read the actual scientific report? Do you know how the study is conducted, how big a sample, what specific painkillers are used, what specific diseases/pains at what stage are under study, what is the profile of the patients population under study, what is the criterion for assessing effectiveness? Most importantly, "no more effective" is a pretty weak statement and means just that, no better. How does one ever leap to the conclusion that something needs to be banned? If you ever have any skill of dealing with probabilistic problems you could easily come up with absurd counterexamples to your assertion. I will just leave it as a homework exercise for you to figure one out.
此外，对孩子的影响 - 周围吸毒的人，可能会影响孩子，所以可能需要管。但我不觉得这些因为医用止痛药成瘾的人会影响到我的孩子。能少管点就少管点。
If you know anything about Chinese history, particularly the Opium War, with more than skin deep superficiality fed by the Chinese authority, you would know opium is but one excuse and scapegoating of the government for hundred years of the corruption, incompetence, oppression of the people prior to the war.
A country and a people do not lose the competitive edge because of what people voluntarily take into their body. On the very contrary, competitive edge and creativity STEM from individuals having the freedom to decide for themselves how to live their own lives so long as he does not infringe upon others' property rights without someone else coercing them into any action, regardless the motivation or morality judgement of that someone else. Hitler never considered he had done anything morally unrighteous for the German people when he imposed his own will on the German people. If anything, the (Chinese) Opium War is a case in point how a nation of oppressed people with no free will of their own would perish.
We are already in a Drug War. It is exactly this war itself is draining taxpayers' money and the wealth of the nation in the service of nothing but the moral crusade of some special interest groups. It is a replay of the Prohibition (of alcohol). Drug use is not a problem. It is the right of an individual and no one else to decide what he put inside of his own body.
You said "政策的制定，会直接影响到纳税人的钱放到哪里去了。" I can not agree more. If you are really concerned with your tax money, you should try to stop the politician from waging this socially destructive, wasteful and moreover losing war. If you read up on the history of the Prohibition, you will conclude that this war will lose eventually precisely like the Prohibition. The sad thing is, it won't end before it has done enough damage.
If you know anything about Chinese history after opium war, you know that is how a Country goes to the drain, if the drugs are legalized.
More and more people are getting stoned after the pot legalization, and that is also how a country loses competitive edge.
You are one of those dumbass leftists who think the panacea to all problem is prohibition. You can present more detrimental statistics for alcohol than drugs. Maybe you should reinstitute and replay Prohibition-era policies first. The leftists never learn. The only solution is to legalize drugs.
谢谢来访并留言。政策的制定，会直接影响到纳税人的钱放到哪里去了。另外，如果您有孩子，就更应该关注这个问题。
不好意思，这个题目很沉重。
是的，说一些空话，解决不了问题。
谢谢来访。是的，这个问题严重到超出工薪阶层人士的想象。
你我交的税被这样浪费很不值得。
Like guns, they don't look at the root of the problem, beating around the bushes, trying to have non-stop talking topics.
Honestly, I have found this country, and people in this country to be very dumb and funny, they make simple problems more complicated, and they see trees not the forest, they shake their heads in sand and pretending to be smart, with eyes blindfolded trying to see solutions.
As for the politicians in this country, they are all corrupted by special interest money. Really don't want to solve problems for this country. You split all the top CCP leaders' brains in half, they would be still smarter than the elected officials.
Opioid addition, gun violence, healthcare reform ---- they will talk about those issues in the next 30 to 50 years. What a joke!
谁想控制这个问题，谁当然可以去努力。我们一般人不妨碍您等，但也别义正辞严的说的好像一般人有义务去管这种闲事似的。